Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15, 19-20, 22-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Paladugu US 20210289391
15. A method performed by a base station (BS), the method comprising:
transmitting, to a relay user equipment (UE), configuration information related to UE-to-UE communication (Paladugu: [0236-0238] transmit, to the UE 115-o, a configuration message based on determining the QoS configuration, where the configuration message includes the first configuration and the second configuration. For example, the base station 105-d may inform the UE 115-o regarding the sidelink DRB/access stratum configuration for the end-to-end QoS configuration); and
receiving, from the relay UE, a packet of a remote UE through the relay UE (Paladugu: [0242-0244] the UE 115-o may transmit a PDU session response message to the base station 105-d),
wherein the configuration information includes information related to a packet delay budget (PDB) for a PC5 link between the remote UE and the relay UE (Paladugu: [0017, 0194, 0237, 0270] the first QoS indicator (e.g., sidelink interface, such as a PC5 interface) may be indicative of a QoS identifier associated with a packet delay budget).
22. The method of claim 15, wherein the configuration information includes a first configuration related to a radio link control (RLC) channel for a Uu link between the relay UE and the BS, and a second configuration related to a RLC channel for the PC5 link between the remote UE and the relay UE (Paladugu: fig. 5 unit 500).
23. The method of claim 15, wherein the configuration information includes information related to a total PDB, and wherein the total PDB defines an upper bound value for delay that the packet may experience (Paladugu: [0128, 0182, 0194]).
24. The method of claim 15, wherein the PDB for the PC5 link defines an upper bound value for delay that the packet may experience for the PC5 link (Paladugu: [0194]).
Regarding claims 19-20, 25-30, the independent claim and each dependent claim are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 15, 22-24 where the difference used is a “relay, BS & NTCRM” with a processor and a memory (Paladugu: Referring to FIG. 12-15, includes a processor, a memory) and the wordings of the claims were interchanged within the claim itself or some of the claims were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claims arid interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to these claims. Therefore, these claims were rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15, 19-20, 22-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Yu US 20180279319
15. A method performed by a base station (BS), the method comprising:
transmitting, to a relay user equipment (UE), configuration information related to UE-to-UE communication (Yu: [0062-0069] deriving the PDB used for PC5 transmission based on the QCI and the estimated packet transmission time over the Uu, and then indicating, at 205, the PDB of PC5 to the relay UE); and
receiving, from the relay UE, a packet of a remote UE through the relay UE (Yu: [0057-0058, 0066-0069] a remote UE in a D2D UE-to-Network relay scenario, for example, sending one or more UL packet(s) in the UP or CP to a relay UE or network node),
wherein the configuration information includes information related to a packet delay budget (PDB) for a PC5 link between the remote UE and the relay UE (Yu: [0062-0069] PDB used for PC5 transmission).
22. The method of claim 15, wherein the configuration information includes a first configuration related to a radio link control (RLC) channel for a Uu link between the relay UE and the BS, and a second configuration related to a RLC channel for the PC5 link between the remote UE and the relay UE (Yu: [0065]).
23. The method of claim 15, wherein the configuration information includes information related to a total PDB, and wherein the total PDB defines an upper bound value for delay that the packet may experience (Yu: [0026]).
24. The method of claim 15, wherein the PDB for the PC5 link defines an upper bound value for delay that the packet may experience for the PC5 link (Yu: [0026]).
Regarding claims 19-20, 25-30, the independent claim and each dependent claim are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 15, 22-24 where the difference used is a “relay, BS & NTCRM” with a processor and a memory (Yu: Referring to FIG. 1a-1b, includes a processor, a memory) and the wordings of the claims were interchanged within the claim itself or some of the claims were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claims arid interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to these claims. Therefore, these claims were rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 15, 9-20, 22-30 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Remark:
The examiner stresses that the claims are too broad and require detail or specialization of the steps as recited in the claims. Alone and as claimed, the limitations are too open.
Examiner has cited particular portions of the references as applied to each claim limitation for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In addition, an interview could expedite the prosecution.
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sulaiman Nooristany whose telephone number is (571) 270-1929. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 to 5. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jeffrey Rutkowski, can be reached on (571) 270-1215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SULAIMAN NOORISTANY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights